The Lucas Museum debacle: Blame the law, not Friends of the Parks

Rahm Emanuel's assault on Friends of the Parks misplaces blame for a museum project of Star Wars creator George Lucas. The mayor's real problem is the law.

Friends of the Parks "have sufficiently pled that the proposed Museum is not for the benefit of the public but will impair public interest in the land and benefit the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art and promote private and/or commercial interests. ... Plaintiffs have plausibly stated a claim for a violation of the public-trust doctrine."

U.S. District Judge John Darrah, Chicago, Feb. 4, 2016.

Advertisement

Frustration with impending defeat is understandable if not always logical or endearing. That's why those of us who want filmmaker George Lucas to showcase his artifacts in Chicago — anywhere but the shore of Lake Michigan — are cringing this week. The hostile blaming of an advocacy group for the museum debacle doesn't only overlook the facts of the matter. Decrying those who work to preserve a limited lakefront as selfish obstructionists also absolves from criticism the project's powerful proponents — those who would surrender some of the rarest, most valuable public real estate on Earth to private control.

Before this week, some of the project's backers had mocked "Friends of the Parking Lot" in public while more heatedly vilifying the group in off-the-record discussion. The public tone changed Tuesday when Mellody Hobson, a Chicago financial executive and Lucas' spouse, steamed that "this process has been co-opted and hijacked by a small special interest group."

But Hobson's criticism was misdirected. She's not upset with Mayor Rahm Emanuel and aldermen who approved the project. Or with her husband who, in Emanuel's memorable phrase, "(has his) heart kind of set on" a lakefront site, as if no other location — not one — suits him. Or with the many city lawyers who propound legal arguments that repeatedly have flopped in federal court. Or with proponents of a private museum's lease of public land that would be renewable for 297 years.

Instead, Hobson was upset with a group that is living up to its name, as it has done many times before. "In refusing to accept the extraordinary public benefits of the museum, the Friends of the Parks has proven itself to be no friend of Chicago ..." she said. "If the museum is forced to leave, it will be because of the Friends of the Parks and that is no victory for anyone."

Mellody Hobson, President of Ariel Investments, participates in a Q&A at the Women in the Forefront luncheon at the Hilton, Friday April 14, 2016. (Abel Uribe, Chicago Tribune)

Emanuel piled on Wednesday, announcing that the city is asking a federal appeals court to dismiss the Friends lawsuit — even though it's still in its pre-trial phase. "Friends of the Parks' claims for federal relief are frivolous, and we can no longer wait for the completion of legal proceedings to correct these legal errors on appeal," Emanuel's office said in a statement. "Due to the extraordinary circumstances here, if immediate review is denied, there will be no litigation to appeal, as the museum will abandon its efforts to locate in Chicago." City Hall said the parks group "cannot be trusted, and we will not allow them to hold this project hostage any longer."

Problems already:

• Don't be startled if the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismisses this as a contrived emergency: Those who argue that appellate judges should prevent a deadline from nixing the project are the very people setting that deadline. Your Honors, save us from our timeline.

• Friends of the Parks "cannot be trusted"? Emanuel's beef is that, on Tuesday, Friends courteously agreed not to fight City Hall's request to stall the group's lawsuit for 30 days, then said that it would continue to oppose any lakefront site. That's not an "abrupt and complete change of position," as the mayor's office bizarrely fulminated. Instead, that's a group being utterly consistent with its historic mission and its legal position in the current case — but then getting back-stabbed by the mayor's office for doing City Hall a favor.

• "(W)e will not allow them to hold this project hostage any longer"? No, Mr. Mayor, Friends doesn't sit on the federal bench, or enforce legal precedents, or block private interests from illicitly controlling public land. Friends only petitions the court. Your problem here isn't an advocacy group, or a judge who has behaved even-handedly in hearing this case. Your problem is the evidently insurmountable one your lawyers should have explained to you early on: the public trust doctrine, a legal principle that dates to 6th-century Rome and is enshrined in U.S. federal and state case law. We've noted that this principle was significantly expanded by the Illinois Supreme Court 30 years ago — after the existing lakefront museums were built.

Friends of the Parks has one goal: preserving open lands and lake access for future centuries of Chicagoans. Among the world's major cities, only Chicago has this still relatively pristine waterfront expanse. Visit all those global cities, then appreciate Chicago: The lakefront that earlier centuries of Chicagoans protected for us to enjoy is without parallel.

Beating on Friends, or blaming the group for renouncing a gift it wants to locate elsewhere in the city, won't fool Chicagoans.